cimawr
-
Posts
397 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by cimawr
-
-
@ OP
I know what you mean.
Hopefully you will never be completely comfortable in this situation.
Sometimes someone just needs to have the gonads to step up and say what needs to be said.
20-30 cachers posted logs, and suddenly I am the first to notice the 'NO TRESPASSING' sign?
Umm. Nicole may never quite fit that description, no matter how hard she tries.
Erm... both males and females have gonads, yanno.
More seriously, I wholeheartedly agree. I've been geocaching for around 5 years now, and I'm still surprised by how afraid people are to say something when there's an issue.
For that matter, I'm frequently surprised at the lengths people will go to just to add to their numbers - parking in the middle of a 4-lane, 50-mph highway; climbing trees on the side of a busy road, right next to a bus stop; ignoring "no trespassing" signs; ignoring the fact that a cache location is actually someone's private fence or the back of someone's private residential property; walking through the middle of a large homeless encampment .... and so forth.
Editing to add: re the climbing trees, it's not the climbing... it's the utter conspicuousness of the location.
-
But you brought your beef here to the forums, now didn't you.
Rather than continuing to attempt to pick a fight with posters here who don't tend to agree with you, why don't you contact the CO and discuss your concerns?
Sorry, but no, I didn't "bring a beef to the forums". I contributed to an already started conversation, regarding a similar/related issue to the original subject: Caches in roadway areas that have the potential to cause traffic hazards, which in turn may cause reactions on the part of LEOs and/or DOTs.
And as I stated in my original post, I've not made up my mind whether to say something to the CO, drop a line to the reviewer, or leave it alone and let LEOs, the DOT, or the construction crews deal with it if they see people stopped in the middle and think they shouldn't be there.
And I'm hardly "picking a fight"... just responding to questions asked. The "picking a fight" going on here isn't on my part.
-
Once you go find the cache I think you will change your opinion.
Erm... unless you've been caching under another name, and/or only started logging your finds when you became a premium member a couple of months ago, this cache is not one of the 20 you've found so far, nor do you even live in the same state as me. So I'm curious as to why you're so sure that you know more than I do about the cache.
-
There's a simple enough solution.
Just move the signs onto the bike path. Off to one side, so the bikes won't collide with them, and damage the cache.
Problem solved! Neeeeeext?
I like the way you think. Although it still wouldn't solve the problem that people are going there thinking it's a cache'n'dash, when in reality the only place to legally park is .38 miles up the road. -
I don't think the CO would mind the GC ID being posted for that one. The only reason I can see for not posting it is to keep us from seeing just how accessible it is.
My reason for not posting it is the reason I already stated, pure and simple. If you want to see how accessible it is, pm the guy who figured out the GC code.... then put your money where your mouth is and go look for the cache. The listing isn't going to tell you how accessible the cache is; only going to the location (which, as I've stated, I drive past several times a week) is really going to tell you that.
And if you're comfortable with being in the middle of a highway, looking for a nano, knock yourself out.
Editing to add: Shouldn't take you more than a couple of hours to drive from New Jersey to Maryland.
-
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this cache. The only reason this would possibly be a problem is if someone tried to turn this into a park and grab or someone's gps was really off AND they are not using their heads.
Sigh. I'm really trying not to get snarky here, despite the attitude you're copping, but:
It's quite clear from the logs that people ARE treating it as a cache'n'dash/park'n'grab. And just because one LEO didn't notice or pay attention to it doesn't mean the next one along is going to... especially since the cache is located where LEOs sometimes sit to speedtrap people coming around that curve at 70mph... namely in the middle of the highway. (Why, pray tell, do you think the cache is named the way it is?)
As far as me looking for the cache... it's not going to happen. I'm not interested in parking in a commercial parking lot, crossing a 6-lane highway (with no traffic lights or stop signs for miles) on foot, walking .38 miles on a bike path, then walking into the middle of a 4-lane highway to look for a nano on a traffic sign in the median.
-
I have the correct cache. Google maps shows the same white car as the picture you posted. You certainly interpret the logs differently than I do.
Perhaps because I'm familiar with the actual cache location, AND with the local caching community?
-
Can you post the GC Code code or PM it to me?
I've quite clearly stated that I deliberately chose NOT to post the GC code because I don't want to upset the CO; I'd appreciate it if you'd respect both me and her & refrain from posting the code.
-
And Google maps shows the cache to be in the "pull off" area, not in the middle.
A, I don't know what you're seeing on Google Maps (assuming you do have the correct cache), but there isn't any pull-off area there, and that's true for 98% of the highway in question. I hope I never have a breakdown in that section of it, because there's no room on the side of the road to get out of the traffic lane.
Some areas have grassy median strips with narrow strips of gravel on the edges that are just wide enough to get a disabled vehicle into, but that doesn't constitute legal parking for geocaching - and in order to park at the cache, you'd have to park in the landscaping, because the median there *doesn't* have the gravel strip.
B, neither Google Maps nor Google Earth are particuarly accurate as to cache location- I find both to be significantly less accurate than even a low-quality GPS. I really hope you don't think that caches are located exactly where they show up on Google...
C, both of my GPS units, as well as everything in the cache listing and the logs, tell me that the cache is on one of the two signs in the median.
As far as "angst", none on my part... just concern that one of these days, a cacher's going to get flattened there. Oh, and I notice you didn't mention the note on the cache WRT not being able to look for it because of cops.
-
Where's the debate?
It sounds like it's illegal to get to this cache.
That should be worth mentioning to the reviewer.
See my replies upthread - technically speaking, it's not illegal to walk across the road, nor to be in the median strip. It's just dangerous due to the speed of traffic, the curves of the road, and that this is NOT a road where you normally EVER see pedestrians. IOW, nobody driving along here - especially at night (this road isn't lit at night, btw) - is going to be expecting people walking across the road.
What's questionable is the legality of PARKING in the middle, which is what people are doing.
Editing to add... my internal debate has to do not only with the fact that technically speaking, the cache itself is legal, but that I don't want to upset other cachers, including the CO who has some other hides I've really liked. (That's also, btw, why I'm not posting the cache listing; last thing I need is some exaggerated story about what I've said getting back to her.) There haven't been many finders for the cache, so I suspect quite a few others, like myself, drove to the vicinity, thought "No way in hell", and drove on by.
Also, if I didn't make it clear in my first post, I'm intimately familiar with the road - I drive the entire length of it at least once a week.
-
Moreover, the photo reveals a sidewalk, both paved and marked at the intersection.
No, it doesn't. That's a bike path, which doesn't connect to any sidewalks for at least 5-6 miles. Just out of range of the photo, it stops, makes a right turn, and becomes an unpaved mountain bike trail. Pedestrians wouldn't be in much danger there, but the path can only be accessed either through the woods, or (as mentioned upthread) by parking nearly half a mile away, crossing a 6-lane highway, then crossing back to the median when you get close to the cache site.
And that's not really an "intersection", either.
In any case, my point is that the cache listing doesn't mention any of this, so what people are actually DOING is parking in the middle of the highway. And it is a highway; it's a high-speed connector road, currently with nothing along it but a few office parks, and NO stop lights for about 10 miles.
-
You keep saying that there is no legal way to access that cache.
Please quote where I said that? What I actually said was "no way in hell should people or cars" be in the traffic lane. (And I only said it once.
)On the bottom of your picture there's what appears to be the right-of-way for an intersecting road that has not yet been built. One could park there and walk across the road.Sorry, but you've jumped to an incorrect conclusion. That's an "official vehicles only" fire road, closed off with a gate, and it would be impossible to park there without obstructing the bike path. Decidedly NOT legal parking. There is currently construction on the *other* side of the road, but it's not legal to park there either; it's in the early stages and there's nothing but mud, gravel, and "no trespassing" signs. (One of my concerns WRT safety is that construction vehicles need to drive through the middle area where people have been parking.)
The nearest legal and/or safe place to park is .36 miles away, in an office center. IOW, the cache CAN be accessed legally (technically speaking)if you park .37 miles away, walk across what is at that point a 6-lane highway, walk up the bike path, then cross the highway again.
Oh, and I mis-spoke about the speed limit; it's 50, and at night people routinely go up to 70+ there. And did I mention the cache site is around a curve?
-
Trying to remember what my house bunnies liked best...
Apple
Cranberry
Alfalfa
Shadow is very cute!
-
I had the Electrician over today (who is actually a childhood friend I hadn't seen in about 5 years). He was in and out of the house a lot, and he really freaked out my Cat. My daughter eventually found the Cat hiding under the bed. Cats generally do not like change.
Hmm. My cat tries to help out workmen (plumbers, electricians, and so forth). Then again he's a Siamese.
-
Perhaps cimawr would be kind enough to post the GC code for the cache in question. Then we could see where it actually located. Seems pointless to debate it unless we know what we are debating.
How about a photo? The cache is located in the point of the median strip just below where the white car is. The speed limit is 40, but cars routinely go 50+ here.
-
This is worse than hiding on the side of the road where you can likely pull off safely. The way cimawr describes it, it is located in the median between the 4 lanes of traffic.
Yep. And it's a narrow median strip with *no* pullover space around it. The only way to access it that I can see is to either park on the side of the highway and walk into the middle, or stop in the traffic lane.
-
For what it's worth, I have seen Guardrail Caches where there was legal parking and they were positioned so they didn't cause the finder to be a highway hazard.
Yep, nearly all the ones I've seen that are actually in guardrails have been both reasonably safe and legal. They're not on major highways, have plenty of pulloff room, and in a lot of cases are beside parking lots to parks and so forth.
-
.png)
1
-
-
What is the recommended time span between finding a recently dropped TB and logging it ? I tend to do it on my Iphone whilst walking away from the cache. Recently got a PM from an annoyed fellow cacher who suggested I wait a week before logging trackables, as he hadnt had an opportunity in the 24 hrs or so between our visits to a cache to get his admin done. He resented me grabbing it from his inventory and worried about the lost mileage the TB would suffer from. I responded by dipping it in the cache to sort out the miles and chose to ignore everything else. Whats the consensus on this one ?
Thanks
Floymo
Had he written in the physical cache log that he'd left the TB? If so, then you should have been aware he'd recently dropped it and waited a day or so to give him time to log his find and put the TB in the cache's inventory. Even if he hadn't written it in the physical log, IMO you should have at least waited a day or so and checked the online logs to see if it popped up.
However, I think his suggestion that you wait a week is over the top; 24-48 hours, yeah. A week, no.
If he didn't make any notation in either log as to the fact that he'd dropped it, and/or is waiting more than 48 hours to make online logs of his finds and/or adjust his trackables inventory, he's the one at fault.
Editing to add: If you knew he was the one who dropped it, AND more than 48 hours went by without it being moved to the cache's inventory, then I'd consider it appropriate to send a polite PM saying something to the effect that you picked it up, you want to move it along, and could he please let you know when he's taken care of his online log so you could place it.
-
Should I attempt to contact the owner? It just seems unlikely to me that he is much concerned about the status of his cache since he hasn't cached in 3 years (and then only for a few weeks).
He didn't even "cache for a few weeks". He found ONE cache. A bit later, he hid a cache in his own yard,logged it as found (saying it was an "awesome cache"), then immediately disabled it.
He's the only person who ever "found" it, although some other poor soul went looking for it.Check it out: Matts Yard=
-
With this particular cache I probably would have done the same thing. This is listed as a small. It looks like went missing sometime ago and someone took it upon themselves to replace it with a micro, probably in the wrong spot. A few found it, then another string of DNFs. The cache obviously has problems that will not be addressed by the owner. If a cache was in good condition, yet had an absentee owner, I would not want to see a NA posted for only that reason. That's what I was curious about.
Something of a side note, but I almost fell off the couch laughing when I read the early notes and realized that the original "cache" hidden by the CO was a plastic cup full of candy, covered with Saran Wrap held on with a rubber band.
And yeah, this is the sort of situation that absolutely warrants a polite public NA - it's crystal clear that it was questionable to begin with (and not just because of what was hidden), and that it's not going to be maintained.
-
This was bound to happen/start somewhere.
Not that all guardrail hides are dangerous, but some always seem to take it to the extreme (at least in the eyes of the people responsible for and/or maintaining such properties). Hence we all get to pay the price. Perhaps guardrail placements overall should be outside of the guidelines -- problem solved!
Or possibly, so close to a road.....similar to the rr track guideline.
Re common sense, I shall quote my dearly departed Mamgi (grandmother): "Common sense ain't."
The problem isn't the guardrail hides, per se, or even "close to a road", but caches placed in guardrails and/or on signs... or whereever - in locations where it's not legal to stop or park except in emergencies.
There's a local cache here that just makes me cringe... it's on or near a sign that's in the middle of a 4-lane highway, at a spot where there's a gap to allow vehicles to cross to the far side. The ONLY way to access it is to be IN THE BLANKETY-BLANK TRAFFIC LANE... whether on foot or in a car, no way in hell should anybody be there. Yet not only did someone put a cache there, but people are parking their cars, getting out, and standing on the cars to reach the cache. It's only a matter of time until a State Trooper or County Mountie sees this, and/or somebody causes an accident.
I've really been debating whether to contact the local reviewer about it.
-
Hey, I have sat on my butt as a plane flew over thousands of caches! Can I log 'em online as found?
Facebook has spoiled me... I found myself looking for the "like" button for your post.
More seriously, I'm in consensus with most of what's been said: if you find the cache, you should sign the log; if you don't sign it, and do a "found" log without reasonable explanation, the CO is well within their rights to delete your find.
WRT "reasonable explanation" - once in a while, something prevents a person who normally signs logs from being able to do it on a legitimate find. In those cases, IMO it's acceptable to do a found log, explaining why you didn't sign, and a reasonable CO should accept it... in some cases, perhaps after exchanging private messages with the finder to verify that what they found was actually the cache. However, unreasonable and/or Puritan CO's are still within their rights - obnoxious, but within their rights - if they delete it.
For example:
I recently made a find of an easy microcache which is on the grounds of a college which doesn't have public parking. The CO (a student at another local college) suggests that cache seekers park in a mall garage a quarter mile away.
I live nearby, and happen to know that the suggested garage is a frequent target of car thieves. Plus, I like to cache with my dogs, and walking through a 6-story parking garage with them isn't something I wanted to try doing. So, I just walked the mile or so to the cache with my dogs... not a way we normally go, since it's a commercial area & requires crossing a couple of busy roads, but doable as a one-time trip to look for the cache.
Got to the location, found the cache... and found that there was no log in it, just some soggy shreds of paper that had once been a business card, plus some small "swag" items. I hunted all through my jacket and pants pockets, and had *nothing* on me that I could write on... which was unusual for me, but there you have it.
I logged my find, since there was no question** that what I'd found was the correct container, with a note praising the hide method, but also noting that the interior of the container was wet and the log was missing.
I also posted a NM stating the log needed replacement... didn't say so in my log, but I was going to try to get back to the cache and put a log in if the CO didn't respond, despite the hassle it is to get there. It's been 3 weeks, and he hasn't, but the next two finders brought paper with them. One of them stated what I refrained from, which is that the container isn't waterproof enough to be used for the hiding spot.
I've also had a past occasion where I found a cache, found that its writing implements were missing or inoperable, AND found that somewhere along the way I'd managed to lose the pen I'd started out with. In that case, I logged my find, explaining in the log what had happened, and also said that if the CO had a question about my find, please contact me & I would describe the location, the container, etc..
**The location and hiding method of what I found, in addition to what was inside it, made it certain that it was, in fact, the cache.
-
If a newbie wants to hang a bison tube in a bush they should be able to, as long as they follow the rules. Whatever is fun for the individual player, as long as the rules are followed, should be allowed.
Ah, but then you'd take away the oldbies' fun of putting other people down!
More seriously, the line about a bison tube in a bush made me chuckle; most of the hides like that in my area are put up by fairly experienced cachers. -
... cache owners also have a responsibility to maintain them. Time after time I see logs about wet or muggled contents that apparently are ignored by cache owners (as indicated by the frequency and the dates of the logs).
Ah, but how many of those logs are official "Needs Maintenance" notes, and how many are "found" logs? I can't 100% put the blame on the CO if nobody ever posts a NM log.
.png)
I feel like a jerk...
in General geocaching topics
Posted
As I understand it, reviewers do NOT receive notifications for "Needs Maintenance" logs; the only logs they get notifications for are "Needs Archived".
Reviewers can also, as I understand it, pull up lists of caches which are disabled, and a reviewer who's doing his or her job correctly will periodically do a check for those, and archive them if the owner has had the cache disabled for too long. Our local review is good about that - when a cache has been left disabled for too long, s/he archives it with a public note saying something to the effect of "Since this cache has been disabled for so long, I'm archiving it to keep it from showing up in searches. If the owner wishes to correct the situation, please contact me."
S/he is also really fair with "Needs Archived" requests due to lack of maintenance or too many DNFs - usually what happens is the reviewer disables it, and gives the CO 30 days to replace or fix it. If the CO doesn't take care of it, then it gets archived.
My rule of thumb is usually if the cache needs maintenance, and there are no prior NM logs, then I post a NM and put the cache on my watchlist. If I see that another cacher (not the CO) has fixed things, or that I was mistaken, I delete my NM log. If it doesn't get fixed, but the cache is still findable, I either don't do anything more, or (if the cache is close enough to me and accessible enough) I may take care of the issue myself (replace a logbook or pencil, that sort of thing).
If the NM issue was that the cache is supposed to be easy but suddenly started getting a lot of DNFs, and/or it's verifiably missing, and the CO has been on the site within, say, the past year, then I post a NM, wait a month or so to see if they respond... if they don't, THEN I'll post a NA.
I won't don't a NA as my first action unless:
1) the cache appears to be missing, or has some other "fatal" issue, and CO hasn't been on the site for a couple of years - especially if s/he has other caches that have been archived due to non-responsiveness
2)the cache appears to be missing and there's a previous NM log that's been ignored for a month or more
3) the cache is placed in violation of a Groundspeak rule (for example, on the grounds of a school).